Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable when no arrest order had yet been passed in the service tax investigation, and whether a blanket direction against arrest or prior notice before arrest could be issued.
Analysis: The proceedings arose from a service tax investigation under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court noted that the competent authority had not granted permission for arrest and no arrest order had been passed. In view of the circular governing arrest under the Central Excise regime, the power of arrest was to be exercised with caution and only after requisite approval. The Court further relied on the principle that a blanket direction requiring prior notice before arrest would impermissibly curtail statutory powers of arrest in such matters.
Conclusion: The anticipatory bail application was premature and not maintainable on the facts placed before the Court. No blanket protection against arrest or prior notice direction was granted, and the application was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Anticipatory bail in a tax investigation cannot be granted as a blanket restraint on statutory arrest powers where no arrest decision has yet been taken by the competent authority and the application is otherwise premature.